Hyde was a member of the board of directors of a FAILED Savings and Loan. It was during that S&L failure era that we the people got stuck paying for! None of the "Hyde kudos" mentioned it. None of them mentioned that his long affair with a married woman caused the breakup of her marriage either.

Right on point. He was a self-serving careerist if ever there was one. He was sent to Ft. Carson as a brigadier general to serve as the Assistant Division Commander for Maneuver to make his bones. He and his commander were oil and water. I guess he saw through him. When I was at the Pentagon, a good source said that his report card said,"If I were going to war, I'd leave him behind." Normally, that'd be the kiss of death for a general officer. He'd be getting a call from the Chief of Staff for the Army praising his service in one breath and telling him to put in his retirement papers in the next. His political connections in the Pentagon, however, pulled his chestnuts out of the fire. In his autobiography, he mentions the problem at Ft. C but doesn't go into detail.

Jerry Lechliter

--
This excellent summary of Colin Powell's lies and lawbreaking doesn't mention one of the most important facts about the Iran/Contra crimes.

It mentions President Reagan’s public pledge of June 30, 1985 that the U.S. would “never make concessions to terrorists" and that within only days, in July 1985, McFarlane, Weinberger and Powell turned Reagan's pledge 180 degrees. Why? What happened? What happened was that, on July 13, 1985, during Reagan's 'colonoscopy' while he was under anesthesia and recovering from anesthesia, Bush was made Acting President for eight hours, and DURING THOSE EIGHT HOURS ‘THE PRESIDENT’, ACCORDING TO McFARLANE, 'AUTHORIZED' WHAT BECAME IRAN/CONTRA. BUSH WAS 'THE PRESIDENT' WHO OVERTURNED REAGAN'S PROMISE, WHILE REAGAN WAS OUT COLD ON THE OPERATING TABLE, and Dick Cheney, who oversaw the Iran/Contra 'investigation' with Lee Hamilton, knew it. In his testimony to the Iran/Contra Committees McFarlane was never asked which 'President' authorized the illegal Iran/Contra operation – Reagan, or Bush? That's because they already knew the answer:

Vice President, Acting President for eight hours on July 13, 1985, and former CIA Director Bush was the true overseer of the treasonous operation that not only subverted the Pentagon's covert logistics supply process to send missiles to the CIA which in turn sent them to the No. 1 terrorist state Iran, but put U.S. troops in Europe in jeopardy in so doing. This literal 'surgical strike' gave Reagan ultimate deniabilty while making Bush acting president just long enough to subvert the law and national security is the key to the entire Irangate scandal.

The article on the triumphant Neocons overlooks one reason they are pleased with the results in Iraq. The idea that Iraq needs to be restored as a functioning society is nonsense from their point of view. Iraq in effect has been destroyed and neutralized and is in the process of being converted into a US colony. The fact that hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis have died is meaningless to the Neocons. An Iraq laid waste is an Iraq that cannot bother Israel. Israel would not mind if the entire Muslim Middle East was laid waste. So much the better for Israel.

Chris

--

My own opinion is that the "reduction" in violence in Iraq is based on
two facts:

1. The powers that be are lying about the levels of violence.

2. In an incredibly short sighted move, the U.S. is arming and
supporting the Sunnis who now see it to be to their advantage not to
attack American troops. The 'payback' will be a more 'evenhanded'
civil war with the Shiites when all is said and done.

Lsmiley7

--

Aside from their fascistic approach to world affairs - - -Pax Americanus - - -they continue their five year lie! There were no weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq, the reason for our involvement.

Necon silence on N. Korea, Saudi Arabia and other "democratic" friends of ours is appalling. Dare/need I mention Russia and other former Soviet countries?

They are setting us up for an attack on Iran, that no doubt will be as well planned and thought out as the one on Iraq. In the middle east Neocons spell democracy O-I-L, no doubt the source of their own paychecks one way or another.

Isn't it time to start paying no attention to these retros?

mooseman01

--

Clinton may have hired Woolsey as CIA director, but he served only two years. It seems that Clinton began to feel about Woolsey the same way Kennedy felt about Dulles, that the guy had been foisted on him by not very sympathetic pressure groups. It seems they both quickly learnt not to trust their CIA directors. Dulles was gone in Kennedy’s first year, fired after a decent interval from the Bay of Pigs. Woolsey, who did not preside over a Bay of Pigs scale fiasco, got the gate after two years.

Also, unlike the neo-cons, Clinton was extremely careful with the lives of American soldiers. The largest number of casualties on his watch came from the Somalia operation, which had actually been launched by Bush – freshly defeated and on his way out the door – in a gesture of contempt for the incoming administration. The closest parallel in American history was Buchanan yielding up the federal arsenals to the Confederates while awaiting Lincoln’s inauguration.

Arriving in office with 26,000 or so troops hung up in Somalia, Clinton was stuck with a bad situation as soon as he took the oath. It never got better, and when the Black Hawk Down incident occurred, killing 18 soldiers, not only did Clinton decide to liquidate the operation, but he also fired the Sec. of Defense, Les Aspin. That accounted for the bulk of U.S. troops lost in the Clinton administration, despite considerable military action in the Balkans.

Clinton had plenty of chances to launch a full scale war against Saddam. He never did. His recent statements about letting Blix finish his job are completely consistent with his more open assertion that he did not favor the 2003 invasion. Indeed, the invocation of Blix is DC code for “against the war.” There is really no other interpretation of it. The sad truth is that if you want to be considered “serious,” you can’t say you’re against the war. Look at how Carter and Gore were pilloried in the press until they were proven right. So if you are against the war, you invoke Blix, who did not find any WMD – and never could have. Hence, no casus belli.

Anyone who believes that Clinton would have invaded Iraq – any more than Gore would have – is simply delusional. Nor would he have ignored the “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the United States” memo.

Brent Budowsky`s Article on the foreclosure mess is the best yet.
Empty homes,people trying desperately to rent their house,anything to
escape the financial abyss countless homeowners suddenly are faced with.
The American dream has become the American nightmare. Plunging home
values have stripped homeowners of their greatest asset,a home of their
own. During these troubled times many people would gladly trade a home
of their own for a rental. Our government should act swiftly to fix this
crisis. No,this would not be a handout. Most homeowners are hard working
people who have paid taxes all life long and have received little in
return. For once, lets us help our own before pouring billions into
foreign countries.

Ahowe32

To comment at Consortiumblog, click here. (To make a blog comment about this or other stories, you can use your normal e-mail address and password. Ignore the prompt for a Google account.) To comment to us by e-mail, click here. To donate so we can continue reporting and publishing stories like the one you just read, click here.